Read and Learn new words!

A pending law change to
grant judges discretion in sentencing for prescribed capital offences
has cheered social activists here, who welcomed the move as progressive.
Their stand is that taking a life is ethically and morally wrong,
whatever the circumstances of a crime and in whichever society it is
codified for good reason. But more conservative Singaporeans who trust
the power of deterrence will wonder if the reform is the thin end of the
abolition wedge. They see no need to disturb the status quo, as fear of
judicial executions has arguably played a part in moulding Singapore
into an orderly society, with little violent crime and drugs
infestation.

Debates on capital
punishment tend to provoke visceral reactions, so it is helpful to be
clear about what the variation in sentencing philosophy is not. It is
not meant to chip away at the death penalty as a fulcrum of the criminal
justice system, and it will not reduce the deterrent force of
punishments that fit crimes against society. The change will only confer
discretion between a sentence of death and life imprisonment in murder
and drug offences where there are defined extenuating circumstances. The
tests for drug couriers are tightly drawn to eliminate scope for any
debasement in the fight against the scourge. For murder, an intent to
kill is the clincher.

The nuanced approach will
enhance the quality of justice by introducing an element of mercy and
rehabilitation. This is progress of an intrinsic nature. However, most
categories of drug offences will still attract a mandatory death
sentence.

The message to drug lords
is unchanged: They pay the ultimate price, if convicted. They should
worry that low-level couriers manipulated into doing their bidding can
escape the gallows if they provide investigators with adequate
information that will flush them out or disrupt operations.

Ministerial statements by
Home Affairs Minister Teo Chee Hean and Law Minister K. Shanmugam
explaining the rationale for the juridical reform emphasised that these
moves take note of evolving societal values. If this is to be taken as
acknowledgement that a liberalisation of public policy usually goes hand
in hand with a nation's maturing, it need also be noted that in
fighting crime, Singaporeans have indicated they favour an
uncompromising stance. Public security remains an imperative despite the
stable climate that has been established.

The day may yet arrive
when Singapore will decide on philosophic and normative grounds that
capital punishment no longer serves society's interests. But only
Singaporeans shall determine that, on their terms. Till then, the
preference is to keep up the guard against possible threats.